Table 4 |
||||||||
| Nutritional status and quality of life in gynecological cancer | ||||||||
| First Author, Year, Study Place | Data Collection Period | Study Design | Sample Size | Nutritional Assessment | Quality of Life Assessment | Groups being compared | Key results | Conclusion |
| Gil KM, 2007, USA [29] | January 2001 to July 2004 | Prospective longitudinal study, consecutive case series |
157 requiring surgery for a pelvic mass or a positive endometrial biopsy (endometrial cancer) Ovarian cancer: n = 33 Endometrial cancer: n = 45 Benign adnexal mass: n = 79 |
BMI (kg/m2) |
1. SF-36 for General Health Status 2. FACT-G |
BMI was used as a continuous variable |
Univariate: Increasing BMI was negatively correlated with physical, social and functional well being. Multivariate: BMI continued to be a significant independent variable included in the model for social well-being, p = 0.03. |
BMI was significantly associated with QoL. As treatment options become more complex, these variables are likely to be of increasing importance in evaluating treatment effects on QoL. |
Lis et al. Nutrition Journal 2012 11:27 doi:10.1186/1475-2891-11-27
